Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39443963›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2024

A scoping review of well-being measures: conceptualisation and scales for overall well-being.

Wei Zhang, Kieran Balloo, Anesa Hosein, Emma Medland

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Wei ZhangSurrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK. wz00391@surrey.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9283-6360
Kieran BallooSurrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1745-4653
Anesa HoseinSurrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7325-5640
Emma MedlandSurrey Institute of Education, University of Surrey, Guildford, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0479-4138

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aims to identify the conceptualisation of overall well-being used for well-being assessment through a review of the characteristics and key components and/or dimensions of well-being scales as presented in current literature. Scopus and Web of Science were searched, and thematic analysis was conducted inductively to analyse the identified components within scales, as well as the types of well-being these scales measure. 107 peer-reviewed articles from 2003 to 2022 were included, and 69 well-being scales were identified covering nine areas of well-being. Four final themes were identified as the foundational dimensions of overall well-being: hedonic; eudaimonic; physical health; and generic happiness. Notably, these 69 scales are mainly validated and adopted in the Western context. '4 + N' frameworks of overall well-being are recommended for assessing overall well-being. This review provides researchers with a synthesis of what types of well-being have been measured and which measures have been used to assess these types of well-being for which research participants. Non-Western-based well-being research is called for that incorporates a broader range of research participants and cultural contexts in contributing to a more inclusive understanding of well-being.

Indexed as

Personal SatisfactionQuality of LifeHappinessHealth StatusHumansPsychometricsEudaimonicGeneric happinessHedonicPhysical healthThematic analysisWell-being

Identifiers

PMID39443963
PMCPMC11515516

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.